Male-Bodied Rapists Are Being Imprisoned With Women. Why Do so Few People Care?

In 2015, the British Association of Gender Identity Specialists (BAGIS) submitted a written brief to the Transgender Equality Inquiry, which had been undertaken by the UK Parliament’s Women and Equalities Committee, explaining why it was “naïve to suggest that “nobody would seek to pretend transsexual status in prison if this were not actually the case.”

“There are, to those of us who actually interview the prisoners, in fact very many reasons why people might pretend this,” wrote Dr. James Barrett, the President of BAGIS. “These vary from the opportunity to have trips out of prison through to a desire for a transfer to the female estate (to the same prison as a co-defendant) through to the idea that a parole board will perceive somebody who is female as being less dangerous through to a [false] belief that hormone treatment will actually render one less dangerous through to wanting a special or protected status within the prison system and even (in one very well evidenced case that a highly concerned Prison Governor brought particularly to my attention) a plethora of prison intelligence information suggesting that the driving force was a desire to make subsequent sexual offending very much easier, females being generally perceived as low risk in this regard.”

The idea that many male offenders would opt to serve their sentences in women’s correctional facilities is not something that should shock a thinking person. But it appears that common sense is forgotten once the words “gender identity” are invoked. Male offenders, including violent offenders and sex offenders, currently are incarcerated in women’s prisons in various western jurisdictions. This policy has been adopted in numerous countries under the guise of tolerance. Recently, Ireland had its first transfer, when a fully intact male sex offender was placed in a women’s prison in Limerick. The California Senate also recently voted in favour of such accommodations. This policy often is referred to as “self ID.” It means that your status as a male or female is determined by your belief (or claim) about your sex and not by your actual biology.

This is happening in Canada, where I live, even if most Canadians have no idea about it. The people who live in prison, including female prisoners, have very little constituency among politicians or journalists. The media reports on this issue rarely. And when they do, there is miniscule, if any, acknowledgement that self-ID poses a serious danger to incarcerated women. Just the opposite: Self-ID is portrayed as a step toward progressive enlightenment, full stop.

When these men do abuse female inmates, it is referred to, for official purposes, as “female” perpetrated violence, since that is how the perpetrator is classified. I learned about this policy, and the lobby effort behind it, from British radical feminists on Twitter, because, as noted above, the Canadian media either isn’t interested in reporting on it, or is fearful that candid reporting in this area will lead to accusations of transphobia.

The activism of these British women brought the case of Karen White to my attention. White is a male rapist who was admitted into a women’s prison in Wakefield, England in 2017. White has been convicted of sexually assaulting two female inmates during his three months of incarceration in Wakefield. He was subsequently sent to a male prison.

Hearing about the UK’s policy of self-ID for prisons prompted me to check if there was a similar policy in Canada. I assumed that this was not the case, as I had not heard anything of it. And the very thought of it ran counter to my conception of Canadian values, which tend to be highly protective of women’s rights and safety. It turned out I could not have been more wrong: On both the provincial and federal levels, male-bodied offenders have been housed in women’s prisons on the basis of self-ID for quite some time.

On the federal level, this began in 2017, after the passage of Bill C-16, which added gender identity and expression to the Criminal Code and the Human Rights Act. Prior to this, only men who’d had sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) could be considered for accommodation in a women’s federal prison. Now, the policy was basically anything-goes.

Sex offenders such as Patrick Pearsall and Matthew Harks have been housed in Canadian women’s prisons. As has contract killer Fallon Aubee, the first male offender (to my knowledge) transferred federally as a result of self-ID. Dangerous offender Adam Laboucan is currently housed in the Fraser Valley Institution for Women in British Columbia. To receive the designation of “dangerous offender” under Canadian law, there must be evidence that the offender has a pattern of brutally violent behavior that is overwhelmingly likely to persist. Laboucan was convicted of sexually assaulting a 3-month old baby, yet he is now living in a women’s prison that participates in the Institutional Mother-Child Program, which is run by the federal government “to foster positive relationships between federally incarcerated women and their children by providing a supportive environment that promotes stability and continuity for the mother-child relationship.” One feature of the program is that it allows young children to live with their incarcerated mothers in detached buildings referred to as “cottages.”

A CBC report on a 2010 decision to deny parole to Laboucan relays that he had threatened to kill a female guard, and that he had confessed to murdering a 3-year old child at the age of 11. (The Provincereported that Laboucan also was denied parole in 2018. He had appealed this decision citing bias on behalf of the Parole Board but this was unsuccessful.)

Laboucan is not in a women’s prison as a result of Bill C-16 (which was cited to justify a policy of self-ID). He has been accommodated because, while incarcerated, he has undergone SRS. The Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) has allowed men who have had this procedure to apply for transfers to women’s prisons since 2001. This policy stemmed from a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling (Kavanagh v. Canada), which declared that not allowing castrated male offenders accommodation in women’s prisons was discriminatory on the basis of sex and disability.

This policy accounts for CSC’s odd classification system. A male offender who has had SRS is recorded in the Offender Management System as a female, while an intact male is recorded as a male (even if it was merely his claim to be a woman that led to his incarceration in a women’s facility).

Matthew Harks recently was released from the Grand Valley Institution for Women in Ontario. He is a serial pedophile who has been convicted of three sexual assaults against girls under the age of 8. He has claimed to have abused 60 girls and to have committed 200 offenses. A 2006 psychiatric assessment of Harks maintained that he has an “all-encompassing preoccupation with sexually abusing underage girls.” Like Laboucan, Harks has undergone SRS, but this has not stopped him from facing multiple accusations of harassment and assault while incarcerated in a women’s prison. In 2016, the Calgary Herald reported that Harks was potentially facing charges for “three alleged offences that took place recently while [Harks] was in custody: assault, unlawful confinement and sexual assault.” The Vancouver Sun has reported that Harks has assaulted two female inmates who were “childlike in appearance.”

The commonly held belief that a castrated male offender poses minimal threat to females is a myth. There is certainly no rational reason why a male serial predator should be housed with women, many of whom have a history of being abused by men. Offenders are sent to prison as punishment. They are not sent to prison to be punished; and locking these women in with violent men is cruel and unusual punishment. It is well established that men and women have vastly different patterns of criminality. It is a basic fact that men are physically stronger than women, and that they regularly take advantage of this fact in every imaginable context to dominate and abuse women.

On September 17, 2019, a grievance was filed by a formerly incarcerated Indigenous woman who maintains that CSC staff were aware that she was being harassed by Harks during her incarceration at Grand Valley, and that they failed to intervene. She has a history of childhood sexual abuse that was perpetrated by a male; and so her confinement with Harks, and the failure of CSC to relocate her, was deeply triggering. She is citing multiple violations of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Harks’ alleged harassment of this woman (a copy of whose grievance I have in my possession) included following her around, as well as telling her she was the reason he was at Grand Valley. On one occasion, he reportedly told her he was “horny.” On another, this convicted pedophile told her she had a “young spirit.” She alleges he met her outside the washroom and asked if she was menstruating. She recognized this continual disrespect of her boundaries as typical grooming behaviour (priming for abuse), and this had a negative effect on her mental health. She became “very fearful, and spiraled into a trauma response with nightmares, sleeplessness and flashbacks.” As there is no trauma therapy available in prison, the reduced functioning she experienced as a result of her symptoms led to threats of segregation from the rest of the prison population. She is citing discrimination on the basis of sex and Indigeneity. (Despite comprising only about 4.3% of Canadian women, Indigenous women make up 40% of federally incarcerated women.)

One would expect all this to provoke some sort of response from Canadian women’s groups. But it hasn’t. The indifference to the plight of such women from the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies (CAEFS) is especially eerie. The CAEFS exists to advocate on behalf of females in the criminal justice system. And so formerly incarcerated women attending a CAEFS conference in Ottawa this past June were in for a shock when they learned that the board had voted in favour of a trans-inclusive policy—meaning a policy supportive of the accommodation of male offenders in women’s prisons on the basis of their declaration that they are actually women. (This development was relayed to me by an attendee, Heather Mason, who formerly was a prisoner at Grand Valley Institution for Women, and now advocates for women in the criminal-justice system.)

I contacted the office of my Member of Parliament, Nick Whalen, a Liberal, and shared my concerns about this accommodation policy with one of his staff members. It was bad enough that sadistic male offenders were allowed into women’s prisons if they had SRS, I explained. Bill C-16 opened the door wide open to any male offender with an inclination towards preferring female company to male. The staffer asked me to send along a more detailed query, as she was “having a hard time finding any viable information regarding [my] concerns.”

I replied by sending a link to article about a father in Quebec convicted of molesting his 3-year-old daughter. Between the time of his crime and the time of his conviction, he claimed to have become a woman; and on this basis, he was permitted to spend his eighteen-month sentence in a women’s prison. I also sent along an article that detailed disturbing data from the UK women’s group Fair Play For Women, which showed that 48% of transgender prisoners in England and Wales were convicted sex offenders.

Her response to this was: “Female prisons in Canada do not house male sex offenders—that is unethical.” She also stated that I was misinformed, and that all of the information I need to know regarding Bill C-16 was at the web link she provided. (The link she sent actually pertained to a different Bill C-16—the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.) All further attempts at correspondence went unanswered. It was like something from a novel by Franz Kafka: The law of the land had been turned upside down for women’s prisons, but no one wanted to talk about it, or even admitted that there was anything to talk about. My own government was essentially gaslighting me.

In November, 2018, I decided to place an Access to Information and Privacy (ATIP) request in order to obtain data on the number of men in women’s prisons, as well as the crimes that had put them there. (This was the sort of thing that enterprising journalists usually do. But as noted earlier, this sort of investigation was inconsistent with their newfound role as trans “allies.”)

I phrased my request so as to ask how many “males labeled ‘transgender’ were being housed in women’s correctional facilities.” On December 3, I received a response from CSC that stated they had no relevant records. I was shocked by this, so I phoned CSC. I was told that they could not provide data because transgender prisoners were not being tracked at all. I was further told that the fluidity of gender made it impossible for such data to even exist.

The following month, I filed an appeal with the Office of the Information Commissioner. In April, my case was assigned to an investigator. In his initial correspondence with me, via email, he copied and pasted part of the Wikipedia entry for “transgender.” He followed this up with: “I guess your request is not very clear.” It was a completely obnoxious response.

It fell to me to explain that we had a policy of self-ID in place for federal prisons, and that these men did not all have cosmetically constructed approximations of female anatomy (as he seemed to assume). He told me that the investigation could take as long as eight months. I stated that I did not believe that this was reasonable seeing as there are fewer than 800 beds for federally incarcerated women in the entirety of Canada, and that all I was asking was how many men were lying in them every night.

While I was waiting for a decision regarding my appeal, someone sent me information relating a completely separate ATIP request. It was a document from CSC that featured a slideshow outlining the number of “transgender women” in women’s facilities. It stated that as of January 22, 2019, there were 10 such individuals in women’s prisons (as well as one inmate listed as “gender diverse”). I forwarded this information to the investigator. When I tried to broach the question as to why the CSC had claimed, in response to my own request, that it did not track transgender prisoners, I was told that this was not within the scope of the investigation. (To be more precise, the investigator, having been called out on the previous misinformation that was supplied to me, cut me off before I was even able to finish the question.)

On September 3, 2019, I received a supplementary release, via email, from the Office of the Information Commissioner, stating that its staff had concluded their investigation, with a finding that my complaint to them had been “well-founded.” This meant that CSC had failed in its obligation to follow the Access to Information and Privacy Act. On September 18, I received the CSC data I’d asked for—more or less. They provided me with a list of the transfers from men’s to women’s prisons between June 1, 2017 and December 3, 2018, as well as the main type of crime committed by each offender. This was the information that both the CSC—and the investigator who’d been assigned to deal with my follow-up queries—had assured me did not exist; indeed, could not exist.

I pored over the information. Seven out of the eight men who’d been transferred had been convicted of a violent crime. Two offenders had first-degree murder listed as their main offence. Three had second-degree murder. Two had “Schedule I” offences—a category that includes sexual offences and other violent crimes, excluding first and second-degree murder. The final offender had Schedule II drug offences as his main offence.

This was horrifying to see but, sadly, unsurprising—as a source already had informed me that half of the male offenders applying for transfers in Canada are sex offenders. Even men who present a serious escape risk are being transferred. This past April, a Quebec judge ordered that John Boulachais be transferred to a women’s prison despite that fact that he is a murderer who evaded custody for 12 years and has made escape attempts while incarcerated in a men’s facility. In one such attempt, which occurred on a bus, he was able to conceal a small saw, cut through his restraints, and jump out of the emergency exit before being apprehended. Women’s prisons were not created to contend with offenders such as Boulachais. Unlike in high-security men’s prisons, the guards there typically do not carry guns.

When I received the appeal decision, I thought that this might mean the government was admitting that the information I’d asked for could not be withheld. Not so: In the process of providing me with the data, CSC retroactively changed the object of my query from the number of males in women’s prisons to the number of transfers between men and women’s prisons. This is an important distinction, as it omits any male offenders who may have been directly admitted upon intake. This data also omits men such as Harks and Laboucan, who have had SRS and so are considered female by CSC. The actual number of males in Canadian women’s prisons is unknown.

And things are getting worse. As of January, Statistics Canada mandates police to record the self-declared gender—and not the actual sex—of both perpetrators and victims of crime. Which means that the tools are now in place for criminal-justice officials to pretend that biological sex simply doesn’t exist from one end of the criminal-justice pipeline to the other. That’s a great boon for sexual predators, and a tragedy for women.

When asked about the subject, most Canadians will say they support legal protections in regard to gender identity. But they are answering such questions in a state of total ignorance. The government has simply gone ahead and transferred inmates, without bothering to explain to Canadians how they are using the nebulous notion of gender identity as a mean to put violent men behind bars with women and girls. In some cases, even broaching this subject socially with people I know elicits raised eyebrows. Until I got the data I wanted (some of it, anyway), people accused me of pursuing a conspiracy theory. But even the incomplete data that was grudgingly handed over to me shows that my fears were well-founded.

On January 12, 2017, Prime Minister Trudeau attended a town hall in Kingston, Ontario, where he was asked a question by a self-described woman who wanted to know whether the PM was working to prevent the possibility that men who claim to be women should be required to serve their sentences in men’s prisons. The Prime Minister responded that “yes,” he would address the issue, despite never having “thought” of it before—and he hoped that we were moving forward on this issue even without his “leaning in on it.” The very next day, the CBC reported that CSC had changed its transgender prison accommodation policy, and that CSC officials would now have a policy of self-ID.

It was a telling moment. The man who had asked the question at the town hall seemed aghast by the idea that a man identifying as a woman would be placed in a men’s prison. He described incarcerating these men with other men as “torture.” Women are expected to accept that claim, while believing that the intrusion of male offenders into women’s prisons represents the height of inclusivity. And the government summarily decided the issue—in men’s favour, of course—without bothering to consult with the 18-million Canadians who are girls or women.

It was nauseating to see these two men so cavalierly discuss this issue in public, while paying no attention whatsoever to the reason why we have sex-based protections in the first place: to protect women from male violence. Self-ID has marched forward despite there being no evidence supporting the claim that these men pose any less of a threat to women than other men. What’s more, our national media–which seems to anxious to produce splashy stories on rape culture in every other context—continues to ignore the issue. What could be more emblematic of “rape culture” than a locked building full of women forced to live with an actual rapist?

In the UK, currently 1 in 50 male prisoners are now claiming to be a woman. There is every reason to assume that the needless danger facing these women will only escalate as more male prisoners become aware of this “self-ID” escape hatch. Meanwhile, we women are dismissed or berated as “transphobes” when we voice concerns. It’s a scandal that is now in plain sight. No woman should tolerate this appalling situation, and no civilized country should ask her to.

April Halley, who blogs at aprilhalley.com, investigates and writes about the impact of gender-identity policies on women and children in Canada.

Featured image: Davina Ayrton, a violent male-bodied British sex offender who identifies as a trans woman, was jailed in 2016 for raping a 15-year-old girl. Davina was named David at the time of the crime, but has indicated a desire to be housed in a female facility.

Correction Notice: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article stated that Karen White raped female prison inmates. This has been corrected to indicate that Karen White, who was convicted of rape in 2018, sexually assaulted female prison inmates.

Share this:

Related

Comments

I’ll give you the answer. Though I guarantee you won’t like it. This is not so much the result of radical gender ideology as decades of desensitization to the reality of prison rape.

It’s perfectly OK to house male-bodied rapists with men (e.g. in gen pop), even if this means a much greater danger that other male inmates will be raped. I mean, after all, if these men didn’t want to be subjected to the danger of being raped in prison, they shouldn’t have committed the crimes that put them there in the first place. And besides, if they are in fact raped, it serves 'em right. Or so goes the nauseating “conservative” narrative.

And so, now you’re surprised people aren’t taking seriously the risk of rape for female inmates? Or you think that only the well-being of women should count?

I’ve served time in prison. Extremely dangerous American prisons. Where people were murdered and assaulted regularly. I never witnessed a rape and only heard of one occurring while I was in. (7yrs)

I also know more than a few women who have also served time. Their descriptions of prison were that while a few women exhibited the potential for physical violence, it’s occurrence was very rare. There was much more emotional and psychological violence (if you accept those terms as valid…I usually don’t).

The male guards were constantly being courted and groomed by the women as they were the only male contacts in a sea of isolated females. But the guards were the only real threat of rape to the women.

So the other means of knowing whether women are raped by other women…anectdotally, I also have access to. And the case to back that claim up doesn’t stand there either.

Be more specific because everything I know and can access is telling me that women raping women in prison isn’t a thing. Which is why the point of the article is so dire. Prison, as fucked up as it is (women’s prisons have notoriously strong programming, therapy, resources so they aren’t really that bad) is a relatively safe place from sexual assault…unless people with penises are allowed to serve time and live in those general populations.

When will people realise that the difference between idealism and ideology can be found in graveyards. For those who carry idealism in their hearts often end up in graveyards as the honoured dead- the victims of ideology, on the other hand, are buried in mass graves, if buried at all…

“…Canadian values, which tend to be highly protective of women’s rights and safety…”

The author is only now discovering a fact about human nature that I unfortunately learned when I was a young teen–in general, people do not care about victims (or outright are hostile toward them) when the perpetrator is someone they value more or fear more, and/or the victim is someone they fear/loathe.

Though this is often seen in non ideological cases - beloved priests, Olympic doctors, teachers, coaches, neighbors, politicians in your party, powerful Hollywood executives, all of whom are frequently believed at first, or ignored, until evidence is overwhelming.

Progressives take that principle to an extreme level because for them it’s 100% about their ideology, as opposed to coherent universal moral values: canadian progressive “values” are only protective of women’s safety so long as they don’t interfere with their ideology. Their ideology is primary, not women’s safety, just as for people who, say, adore a football coach, put that adoration above the safety of the young boys in his care. But progressives are especially dangerous because it’s not about an individual; it’s about a whole ideology and groups of people – they view people as a means to an end, defined by their group affiliation and position in a hierarchy. So perpetrators who help their narrative are protected, whereas victims who harm their narrative are attacked or ignored.

We saw that most clearly in England with the grooming and rape scandal of over 1000 white girls; the police knew and looked the other way because the perpetrators were higher up in the hierarchy; and too a few years back in Germany, when illegal immigrants raped and assaulted dozens of women, and the media knew but were silent, because “migrants” are higher up in their intersectional hierarchy than mere women. Or when a Jewish child was shot point blank in the head at a French Jewish school in front of her father, this was defensible because Israel is “racist” and the Muslim murderer ‘obviously’ had grievances, which naturally made him want to shoot a child point blank in the head; he belonged to a group higher up in the hierarchy and besides Jews are almost always hated victims.

The author makes the mistake of believing progressives when they say they care about women (or anyone in their ideology in point of fact). Progressives care about the ideology. If women stand in the way, so be it. If women can be used to advance the ideology, yay. (Even in the MeToo movement isn’t about women; it’s about the ideology. Hence we are supposed to ‘believe all women’ but only when they accuse someone they want to take down, and/or someone who has no power they can use.)

This is how they can take an ex Muslim black victim of female genitalia mutilation, and say outright they wish her vagina would fall off, or block her from speaking, or call her a 'porch monkey," – they don’t care that she is any of these categories because she is a walking rebuke of their ideology, which is primary.

Any radical feminist who whines about how they are now treated when they participated zealously in the very same ideology (intersectionality, Victimhood pyramids defined by these zealots, caring more about the ideology than fact or truth)–they need to look inward and see how they sowed the wind and now are reaping the whirlwind, and they need to reject the ideology lest they continue to see these absurdities and cruelties. If it’s bad for them, it’s bad for everyone. For years - as one poster has pointed out - male rape victims have been a punch line in a joke. They still are, to a large extent. This is because the Intersectional crowd values their own power hierarchy where men are by definition near the bottom of their hierarchy and therefore “deserve” rape or at least don’t deserve to be pitied or even listened too. They don’t care about the moral issue itself - rape, in this case - they care instead about their hierarchical groups. If they cared about protecting victims of rape, they would do so regardless of gender or race or group or degree of power. canada, under progressive leadership, doesn’t care one iota about women per se, unless their safety can be maneuvered to “punch up” as they put it. Right now, trans women are for some inexplicable reason, almost at the top of the victim hierarchy, or maybe the top. So they are untouchable. Now, women, just like men in prison, have to suffer as punch lines in jokes or being invisible.

The solution is to treat the crime or act itself, universally, not the subjective power or usefulness of victims or perpetrators, and to treat individuals as opposed to ideologies.

Perhaps we need to take the broader view here as the professor suggests. Putting non-violent offenders with violent murderers and sex offenders means putting them at a, perhaps unreasonable, increased risk of bodily harm.

People should not fear for their life or body when sentence to jail, regardless of gender. Certainly when they are not violent people. Should the punishment for a thief include rape in prison?

That said, society has already determined that the risk to women from violent men is unacceptable and therefore segregated the prison. Society didn’t change its position on that. It is pretty certain that if it was put to a vote whether men and women should share prisons, the vast majority of society will vote against such a proposal.

But it seems like co-habitation of mixed sex prisons have found a backdoor through the self-ID method without society’s awareness let alone consent.

What is most amazing is that the same people that have lost the complete trust of society, are trusted to declare their gender without any questioning.

Did “Trust all women” just evolved to “Trust all violent offenders”???

Thanks for sharing your experience. There are very few accounts of the American prison experience by ‘regular’ prisoners. It would be great to hear more.

However, this is anecdotal, as you note.

Here is a start on data, from Wikipedia: " According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, around 80,000 women and men a year get sexually abused in American correctional facilities.The National Inmate Survey presented data that consisted of 233 state and federal prisons, 358 local jails, and fifteen special correctional facilities between the time period of February 2011 and May 2012, with a sample of 92.449 inmates ages eighteen or older, and 1,738 inmates sixteen to seventeen. The statistical information highlighted that an estimated of 4.0% of state and federal prison inmates and 3.2% of jail inmates reported experiencing one or more incidents of sexual victimization by another inmate of facility staff since their admission to the facility or in the past twelve months since the survey was executed. More specifically, around 29,300 prisoners reported an incident regarding another inmate, 34,100 prisoners reported an incident involving staff that worked at the facility, and 5,500 inmates reported an incident involving both. Rates reported by female inmates were higher than male inmates, higher among African American inmates than Caucasian inmates, and lower among inmates ages thirty-five or older than inmates ages twenty to twenty-four…According to one source, female-perpetrated sexual abuse of inmates is a particularly large problem in juvenile detention centers, where 90% of victims of staff abuse say a female correctional officer was the perpetrator."

So based on this data (and more–I was being lazy with Wikipedia), a significant portion of both men and women are victims of rape while in prison, and women can be perpetrators particularly in juvenile facilities.

My own point is that rape is the issue here, not gender. Women can be perpetrators so just having a penis is not the issue, particularly for male victims. Having a trans woman who is in prison already for violence is obviously going to be a bad idea, despite what the propagandists want to believe, but the larger issue is rape at all, from any gender to any gender.

I never witnessed a rape and only heard of one occurring while I was in.

I think it depends on how you define rape. If you are talking about one or more prisoners using force to overcome a resisting prisoner then yes, there are not many rapes.

However, if you define rape as someone who has acquiesces but does not want it, then there are many rapes. Sometimes a strong inmate(s) threatens verbally and the victim acquiesces. Sometimes rapists manipulate a weaker inmate into debt such as giving them drugs, extra food or getting them into gambling debt and tell them they have to pay it back through sex. Sometimes a weak inmate seeks out a strong inmate and becomes his ‘boy’ in the belief that ‘servicing’ one inmate is better than being raped by many. In these cases, the victim would not have sex if given a choice but in fact they have no choice.

The sexuality demographics in prison are the same as they are everywhere. There is a small contingent of homosexual and bisexual males. An even smaller group of cross dressers and transgendered people.

The reason I gathered there was so little rape to witness during my incarceration was most of the men were not willing to adapt their sexuality to the lack of females. The ones that were willing (usually because of a life or long sentence) or that were homosexual didn’t have to rape to have sex…they had to pay. There were always willing male prostitutes to manage that demand.

Not to victim blame or decry rape survivors, but sex in prison is obviously against the rules. Being caught meant punishment. Time in SHU. Loss of commissary. Loss of good time. An easy way to escape a fair amount of that punishment was for inmates to claim that they were victimized. In federal prison and most state prisons if there are two people involved in an incident there is almost always a separation order and at least one of them is sent to a different prison. So the “victim” would never have to face the “perpetrator” again.

Prison prostitutes don’t have many strikes playing this game before it becomes obvious to administration what is actually happening. But I do know this ploy is something that happens or is attempted when prisoners are caught in an obviously sexual situation.

“And besides, if they are in fact raped, it serves 'em right. Or so goes the nauseating “conservative” narrative.”

Always nice to put words in other people’s mouths then attack them for something they didn’t say.

The article was quite clear on why the issue of females being raped in prison is not publicized and relatively unknown.

“When these men do abuse female inmates, it is referred to, for official purposes, as “female” perpetrated violence, since that is how the perpetrator is classified.”

In other words according to prison statistics there are no men in raping women in women’s prison because the male perpetrators identify as female. With that bizarre rationalization, an entire classification of crimes disappears.

“Self-ID is portrayed as a step toward progressive enlightenment, full stop.”

Furthermore the article documents how advocacy groups for female prisoners are so infected with political correctness, they are derelict in their stated mission.

I think the remedy for this is to use the one I advocate for lavatories and locker rooms: remove male and female from the facilities’ labels and substitute penises and vulvas. This removes the lexical game play for the players. Yes, you’re a woman with a penis, so you go to penis prison. A post-operative trans person would be housed in jail or prison with others of the same present anatomy; pre-ops housed by what exists between their legs and not what is wished for. If there are specific risks to or by pre-operative trans people, they ought to be segregated, for example pre-op trans women and pre-op trans men housed with others of their kind, respectively, and not amongst either males or females.

No need for the condescending reply. Especially when presenting such a piss poor study as evidence of your superior search skills.

Again, I did my own search. I saw this one and a few other studies as well.

None of them dealt in data involving incident reports. Stop. Ask yourself why. Especially when THAT data would be the most readily kept and easily available. Because most likely when you use that criteria the sexual assault rate in prison falls to the 1% statistic that is also mentioned in the same study that you quote.

The questions in the study you quote were extremely subjective and the yes no answers were interpreted as sexual assault. “Unwanted sexual advances” Sounds vaguely like the same study on American university campuses that produced a “1 in 5 women are victims of sexual assault” quote from so many ridiculous politicians.

Just as with anthropogenic climate disruption, where destabilization vectors reach ‘an irreversible tipping point’ leading to uncontrolled disagreggation of climate stabilizers and increasingly violent and unpredictable perturbation of weather patterns, so the same chaotic outcome can happen to cultural infrastructure…and for exactly the same reasons…which makes the shocking revelations documented in the article above all the more alarming.

We saw something of that during the GFC in 2008, when at all levels of its operations, the financial system and the people running it lost their sense of what they were there for, who they were supposed to be servicing, what honesty and integrity meant, and above all any sense of rational evidence based thinking, as they piled increasingly unstable and implausible credit leverages on top of each other in a house of cards scenario that had to eventually fall, because it bore no relation to reality at all…and then, as it started to collapse, shorted the customers they sold this impossible shit to, to clean up on the back end of the inevitable disaster they knew by then was incontrovertibly coming.

The invasion of the transgender triffids seems like something out of a ghastly sci fi movie, only without the end-of-film resolution and rescue of civilization-as-we-know-it. The whole system of social administration, including its professional peak bodies, state bureaucracies, pedagogues and legal/political support mechanisms have been colonized by a deregulatory and privatization driven indulgence ideology that looked benign in the early stages, but in fact prepared the way for not just the collapse of reality into increasingly fantasy based denial of objectivity, but worse, also took down moral axioms, rules based behaviour and the boundaries that gird them, in favour of postmodernist, subjectivist and marketed consciousness, that turns dysfunctional reality disorders into an ‘alternative-way-of-being’ which we all have to subscribe to, to maintain a now highly orchestrated collectivized delusionality analogous to the Emperor’s New Clothes.

The loss of any kind of grounded existentiality through protracted and increasingly extreme ideological identity overleveraging now confronts us with a ‘house of cards’ cultural world that is heading down the same sinkhole that swallowed the world of Collateral Debt Obligations into a morass of much larger debt that was covered by printing money and a game of economic charades that bears no relation to anything.

The larger system has to support institutional fruitcakery and psychological delusionals, because if it denies the rationality of this trans-concoction, the whole already very compromised infrastructure of ideological discourse would start to come unstuck and dethread, as its assumptions were exposed to sunlight and the awful truth, that there isn’t much there to bless itself with.

The absolutely shameless screwing over of the female estate and the unabashed colonization of children by the trans lobby and its mainly state employed acolytes is not just a reflection of disappearance up the collective rectum, but a necessary ritual to maintain an unsustainable reality paradigm that will instantly collapse as soon as anyone can get enough traction to ripple the bad news amongst the crowd watching the Emperor’s parade.

And the bastards will go to any futile lengths at all to try and make sure that never happens.